An energy beaming success rekindles talk of space power

A day before Hurricane Ike made landfall on Galveston Island, a scientist named John Mankins announced that he had beamed electricity from the island of Maui to the island of Hawai’i, a distance of 148 kilometers

What’s the big deal? That’s about the same distance from the ground to the level of atmosphere where engineers might one day place massive solar panels.

The concept is known as space solar power, in which solar panels in High Earth Orbit collect energy and beam it by microwave to the Earth. From this altitude the panels would have an unobstructed view of the sun, 24 hours a day, and create zero emissions after construction and launch.

Mafic Studios, Inc.

The launch costs are the main stumbling block. Current estimates are between $20 billion and $100 billion for a 4 gigawatt station, or enough electricity to power 1 million homes.

But with an intensive research program no doubt those costs could be substantially reduced, and perhaps it would allow the sponsoring country to become the global leader in cheap launch technology as well as cheap, clean and renewable (*) electricity from the stars.

Hey, if we can spend $700 billion to shore up the economy, spending $1 trillion or so to solve the nation’s energy and climate problems, as well as giving NASA a vital and compelling mission, doesn’t seem like such a bad bargain.

27 Responses

Maintenance? How many $$ per year to maintain this thing in orbit? Repairs, orbital stability, life span, etc. It’s not like we could just park it up there and forget about it. Space is a hostile environment.

Eric, your post is somewhat misleading. You say, “That [148 km] is about the same distance from the ground to the level of atmosphere where engineers might one day place massive solar panels,” then go on to talk about “High Earth Orbit” where panels would have an unobstructed view of the sun 24 hrs a day.

A few comments:

1) 148 km is generally considered to be a very low orbit. The ISS, for instance, is in a ~350km orbit.

2) While it would be possible to place satellites in a 148km orbit that had a continuous view of the sun, it would be difficult to maintain such a low orbit (due to atmospheric drag, among other things) for any length of time.

3) Any satellite in a 148km orbit will have a very limited view of the ground, and that view will be constantly changing, making ground-based receiver placement problematic.

What about heating all those molecules that the microwave beam passes through on the way down through the atmosphere? Birds or planes or hotair balloons? Even the tightest microwave transmission over distance looks like the cone of uncertainty unless there is a solid waveguide.

Navyduck – Microwaves are already used as relays, so far so good And planes would be fine, they’re practically faraday cages already. I wouldn’t fly a balloon through it though

I think the bigger issue might be overcrowding if this thing takes off. Why stop at power? No reason why you couldn’t use P2P lasers for high bandwidth network stuff. Except for rain…pesky pesky H2O, definitely a defraction issue.

Eric, I had heard that price of nukes was going up. Reading that article indicated that

“The cost of commodities like steel and cement have increased substantially, pushing up the cost of any power plant. Progress Energy’s new estimate also includes a $2-billion to $3-billion transmission project, as well as the cost of land, financing, labor, fees and fuel. Early estimates didn’t include those costs, the utility said.”

I do know that the nukes have particular capital cost requirements that don’t apply to conventional plants, such as decommisioning costs or the special reactor vessel which is made of steel that only Japan can supply.

I’ve always liked the idea of powersats, but I think there a non-starter for a few decades. Maybe if we get a space elevator….

If the logistics for safely installing and protecting such reactors, as well as the delivery and removal of fuel, can ever be worked out I think backyard reactors have immense potential to meet the country’s needs.

But those logistical issues are huge.

I need to do a story because there are some A&M engineers working on thorium reactors that might reach these goals.

Everitt, when the power to an elevator fails, it’s designed to stop where it is and not fall. If you can do the same thing to an airplane, I’m all for it.

A new conventional aircraft takes years to bring to production, and that’s using existing technology such as turbine engines and the such. If a builder wanted to develop an aircraft based upon beamed power, I would expect an R & D time of over ten years, and even more if it’s for passenger hire. The FAA issues type certificates and they are fussy about such things.

Eric, I agree that those logistical issues you point out are indeed difficult to surmount, but the folks at Hyperion seem to think that have a handle on such problems. Having such a small, reliable and safe source of clean energy would, if it does turn out to really offer those advantages, could radically change the energy debate. I can easily foresee a day when every new subdivision or neighborhood has one or two of these things as their primary source of electrical power. With the power source and all of the external wiring to homes, offices and business buried, no more 2-3 week long power outages from hurricanes! I think that point alone would convince a lot of folks that this was worth pursuing….:-)

Turns out that the CEO of Hyperion is an Aggie….I wonder if there are any ties between it and the Texas A&M researchers you mention above, Eric?

@Corey – That’s something I never thought of before. Considering most homes in Houston can’t even have a basement, what happens to power lines that are buried in a place like Houston that floats on the water table? I understand flooding = bad, but what keeps the displaced water out during construction and normal operation? Are they really well insulated, built like undersea cables, encased in concrete, or other?